CoreMack said:
That is inaccurate, you just made it up because that's how you want us to tag.
I know it's a bit late, but I read agglego2's post as a suggestion for how we should tag, not how we currently tag (read the last line in that post and you might see what I mean).
CoreMack said:
Gender expression gives us a rebuttable presumption when sex is unknown. Gender identity currently plays no role at all, other than in the limited exceptions we have carved out from the default rule (e.g. Bridget with trans flags).
Is the reason for the exception because of the possibility Bridget might have had a physical sex change, thus making her physical sex unknown and allowing gender identity to be the determining factor in what tags to use? In that case, shouldn't commentary (pronouns, etc.) also affect what tags to use when there's no visible evidence of physical sex?
Personally, I question why we even have this exception, since getting a physical sex change is not a requirement for being trans, and I think that after applying Occam's razor, most androgynous Bridgets, including the trans ones, can be safely assumed to be physically male. But as long as the exception exists, it does leave us open to negotiation regarding whether the exception can be expanded to cover commentary and artist tags, as well as using 1other for androgynous posts (though I'm not pushing hard for it because it might mess up the otoko no ko tag). I believe that would be the best shot for users pushing for 1girl on SFW Bridget posts.